The Rules Revisited

I've dated countless women and it has always amazed me how little they know about men. If nothing else, this blog is an outlet for voicing my astonishment at the typical female's ignorance of the male mindset. At most, it is a reliable source of advice for women who want to improve their chances with the opposite sex.

Saturday, January 30, 2016

One question I receive from readers frequently goes something like this:

"My boyfriend broke up with me because of X, Y or Z reason. It has been tough, but I've been following your advice, and I haven't contacted him at all since it happened. He texted me a couple times asking how I am, but I didn't reply. The thing is, his birthday is next week. It is OK to send him a message to say 'happy birthday'? I don't want him to think I am rude."

The answer is definitively, absolutely, always, without a question "no."

I don't care that you've decided to "remain friends" or how close you still are. I don't care if he got you a huge present last year and you "feel the need to return the gesture." I don't care if you say "but we just broke up a couple days ago," or that "I always do that kind of thing for people I care about, and I still care about him." And I definitely don't care if you "just think it would be kind of mean not to."

Don't do it.

All of the above are rationalizations - mere excuses for remaining in contact with him, for trying to re-initiate something or seeing if he'll take the opportunity to re-initiate something given the chance. He isn't your boyfriend anymore, and as I explain in my book, he really isn't a friend or acquaintance anymore either. He is an ex, you're single, and as long as you are keeping strings attached to him you aren't attaching new strings to someone else.

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

I recently spent a couple weeks in Europe. While there, I noticed something that genuinely surprised me: older European women are sexy. I found myself attracted to women over the age of 35 or even 45 much more frequently than I do in the U.S., where I almost never notice women over the age of 35. In Europe, it was a regular occurrence.

It didn't take me long to realize why. The difference is obvious. My attraction to these women could be almost completely attributed to the following factors:

This was kind of a revelation to me. I'd thought that wrinkles, loose skin, and thinning hair (the most obvious signs of aging) were the main factors reducing a woman's attractiveness. But this simply isn't true. Feeling my neck instinctively turn and my eyes involuntarily drawn to the hips of these European women as they walked by put an end to that idea. Perfect skin and perfect hair simply don't matter that much. My hormones were saying "YES" over and over again to women without either one.

But more importantly, it was powerful because it gave me hope. Yeah that sounds like exaggeration and maybe even a little gay, but it's true. I'd always had this background fear that after getting married and enjoying several years of physical attraction and great sex with my wife, she'd inevitably lose her physical beauty, I'd lose my physical attraction, and sexual fidelity would become a burden. A perpetually satisfying sexual relationship with an aging woman seemed impossible. And given that I never want to cheat on my future wife, that was a pretty disheartening belief. It essentially meant that I had to choose between having a family or a sex life.

I believed this was inevitable because I saw it happening all around me in the United States: the vast majority of women here become unattractive after 35. Physical attraction is by no means everything, but it's pretty damn important. So realizing that I could be legitimately attracted by women over 35 was a huge breath of fresh air. Sure, I'd always known it was possible for women to remain attractive as they age, but in the United States this is a rare exception, and seemingly impossible to predict. In Europe, however, it is the norm. And the fact that almost a whole continent of women can do it proves that it's totally achievable.

But here is the thing: European women don't just happen to wear heels and keep their hair long; it isn't a stroke of genetic luck or some fluke of cultural development. The decision to do those things is rooted in their mindset, in their beliefs. They do these things because as they age, European women continue to think of themselves as sexual beings. The wear dresses and stay in shape because they have zero doubt that they can still be very attractive to the opposite sex - and they are absolutely right.

In the United States, women either don't believe this, or they aren't motivated by American men to do this.* Probably it is some combination of these two factors, but I am skeptical about the importance of the latter, mainly because most European men are pussies, and they still manage to motivate their women to look sexy. Anyway, for the sake of not turning this post into a critique of cultures, I am limiting the discussion to the point about belief - or more specifically, American women's disbelief.

So let's get right to the point: that disbelief is unfounded, because you can totally look sexy to men well into your 50s. The exact same things that make you attractive to men in your 20s continue making you attractive well into your later years; there is no reason to abandon them.

Get rid of this idea that some clothes are "age-inappropriate," or that you have to somehow limit your wardrobe as you get older. The only clothes that are age-inappropriate are those that make women who aren't ready for sex look sexual. If anything, increased age should expand your wardrobe, since you'll be more confident, have stronger boundaries, and therefore be able to pull off sexier looks.

Nope, you don't need more makeup, and you don't need a boob job. Yes, believe it or not, your body is still sexy in spite of the wrinkles and grey hairs. Shit, I don't care if your hair is completely grey. If you are in good shape and you dress in a feminine, sexual manner, you are going to give men erections for a long, long time. The male need for Viagra says just as much about women's unwillingness to think of themselves as sexually desirable beings as it says about the impotence of their men.

Yeah it might be tough to see yourself getting older, especially in light of knowing how much men care about looks. I get that. But it is flat-out wrong and incredibly short-sighted to think that just because you are on a downward slope, the game is over.

Remember this as you age. And for those of you already well past your prime, recognize that it is never too late to reverse your thinking. You can still be sexy; you just need to make an effort and shed these puritanical American ideas. True, you'll be fighting your culture in doing so, and you'll have to learn to come to terms with looks of disapproval from the women who decided that it was acceptable to wear sneakers to the grocery store. But if your personal style is rooted in a firm belief about the kind of woman you want to be, you'll see those criticisms for what they are: comments from women motivated primarily by jealousy and the will to believe they don't have to work.

---------------------------------------
* Some people might argue that American women stop trying to be sexy because the ones who get married and have children foster a culture that prioritizes raising children over being sexually attractive. This might be true, but it misses the point. The error lies not in American women's efforts to be good mothers, but in their belief that this somehow precludes being sexy. There is no reason why women can't do both, as evidenced by European women, who are also great mothers. In fact, this is a topic for another post, but I would argue that you actually can't be a great mother without continuing to think of yourself as a sexual being.

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Several years ago, I got into a discussion about women's clothes with my girlfriend at the time and her friend. The friend mentioned that she had "kind of started to hate polo shirts on girls." I was a bit surprised, so I asked what was motivating her hatred. She replied that they were "just too masculine."

I found that interesting. I'd never even noticed polo shirts as being particularly attractive or unattractive, let alone masculine or feminine; but I could see where she was coming from. After all, some clothes (dresses for example) are more feminine, so it made sense that other types could be more masculine. From that point on, I started paying more attention to how sex-appropriate various types of clothes seemed.

Years later I started reading a website called Masculine Style, which does a great job of teaching men how to dress well. The author explains that the history and evolution of certain clothes is what makes them have the visual effect that they do, making them work (or not) for different men in different situations.

He explains, for example, that heavier knit sweaters are far more rugged and masculine-looking than a thin cashmere cardigan because they were designed for and traditionally used by dock workers and fishermen. Similarly, boat shoes were designed with soles that were soft enough to prevent scratching the decks of yachts, and therefore still hint at wealth and luxury in spite of their casualness. Sturdier materials like denim and leather have histories rooted in farming and manual labor, and so they carry connotations of their industrial origins – which brings me to my point…

For a couple years now, I've realized that I don't like when girls wear denim or leather. If the girl is good-looking, I will still be somewhat sexually attracted to her, but both the magnitude and type of attraction is significantly different than it would be if the same girl were dressed in lighter, softer materials. And following the train of thought that was inspired by my ex-girlfriend's friend and what I read on Masculine Style, I've started to wonder if my distaste is due to denim and leather being inherently unfeminine materials.

I mean think about it: denim and leather are rough, sturdy materials made to withstand the abuse of hard labor. They were made to protect rugged men doing rugged work. In the same way that we project onto guys who wear heavy-knit sweaters the masculinity of dock workers, it makes sense that we project onto women the connotations of wearing laborer's clothes – whether we do so consciously or unconsciously. And doing so casts a shadow over a woman's femininity. Asking a woman to look attractive in a biker jacket is kind of like asking a man to look attractive in lace.

Now, I realize that anytime you say (or even suggest) that something might be "objectively" masculine or feminine, people get defensive. If there is a scale along which masculinity or femininity can be quantified, people invariably start worrying about where along it they'll be placed. They are afraid of being judged.* But I am going to assume that my readers have learned to be comfortable with themselves, and throw the idea out there anyway – not so much because I am completely convinced by it as to field your opinions. So here is the concept:

Denim and leather (and perhaps other materials besides) are objectively masculine, at least to the same extent that materials like satin or lace are feminine. The current popularity of leather and denim in female fashion is a trend, piggybacked on the popularity of feminism, and it does not reflect the objective attractiveness of the materials themselves. While women can often look attractive in denim or leather, they do so in spite of the materials, not because of them.

Nope. Really.

I've been testing the idea recently by mentally separating the factors of my attraction each time I see a hot girl wearing one of these materials. Certainly when I think about a woman wearing any piece of clothing in either denim or leather, I can always imagine her being sexier in something less rugged. I've never liked jean or leather skirts on girls; and although it is much harder to look objectively at jean pants (because they are so entrenched in current fashion), I find normal cotton way more attractive.

When I suggest to my male friends that leather and denim are unattractive on women – which I've done several times – I rarely get an enthusiastic chorus of agreement. I get, "Yeah I guess I can sort of see what you mean" or "No, man, I love a girl in a jean skirt." But I am pretty sure that these statements ultimately boil down to "I am not observant enough to figure out what turns me on about a woman's wardrobe" and "I love a girl in a skirt."

Again, this isn't a statement about what women should or shouldn't wear (they're your clothes, do whatever the you want), it is merely a statement intended to spark thought about whether your choice of clothes is an authentic expression of your personal taste or the voice of popular culture.

Oh and just for the record, I am OK with polo shirts on girls.

---------------------------------------------------------------*In this sense, modern Western culture (at least when it comes to gender) is like a school system without testing. Everyone is just kind of learning at their own rate without an objective measurement of anyone's performance. You can imagine how outraged people in such a system would be the first time you were to suggest that there will periodically be these things called “exams” by which students' comprehension will be evaluated. There would be huge resistance. But testing in schools isn't the end of the world. Yeah, there is pressure to perform to a certain level, and the students that do poorly have to acknowledge the fact that they aren't as “smart” as the other students. But it introduces a degree of accountability that cannot otherwise be motivated, and the school system is better off for it.

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

I haven't come across many online dating advice resources for women that I consider valuable. You might have noticed that (until today) I didn't follow anyone on Twitter, and you probably notice that I don't have links to other websites anywhere on here. This is because most other dating advice resources for women basically suck. They either give advice that feeds people's need to feel like there are easy solutions, don't say anything insightful, or their authors are clearly more interested in their personal success than putting out quality content. I don't want to undermine my readers' trust for my content by recommending them.

Well, today I stumbled upon* an impressive exception. Her name is Amy Young and she has a YouTube channel and a blog. I haven't watched all of her videos or read all of her articles, but I've seen more than enough to recognize three things that set her apart:

She's smart. Why this matters is kind of self-explanatory, but I am going to spell it out anyway: it means that she gets down the crux of your issues with men and dating, and she explains them clearly. (And to anticipate the comments: yes, in spite of what you may have inserted between the lines of my posts on the topic, intelligence in women is attractive.)

She's genuine. She isn't dishing out advice from the "I do everything right and that's why you should listen to me" perspective like many supposed dating gurus. It comes much more from a place of "Yeah, I fucked this up too, but I see now where I went wrong; don't make the same mistake I did." And her advice is all the more trustworthy because of it.

She's not a complainer. This is by far what sold me the most. People who don't complain are rare. Very, very, rare. And this is all the more true when it comes to talking about the behavior of the opposite sex. Aside from a couple tongue-in-cheek comments, her content is 100% devoid of the hackneyed, indulgent, "girls are good, guys are bad," victim-type undertones that pervade so much of the dating advice out there for women. That absence is a hallmark of someone with strong boundaries, and it demonstrates the kind of mindset you need to attract a quality guy. This is the kind of girl you want to be taking advice from.

Yeah, OK, she starts her videos by saying shit in an weird voice, and she puts gay music in the background of her videos. But you're girls so you probably like that stuff anyway.

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Every once in a while I get e-mails from girls who have clearly resigned themselves to a life of lovelessness because they think they are ugly. This post is for them.

I used to feel sorry for ugly girls. When you're a young guy who still feels completely in awe of beautiful women, it's easy to fall into thinking that the girls who don’t have a visual effect on you are incapable of enjoying the dating world. Female good looks were overwhelming to me at the time, so the girls without them mustn't have been able to get guys – or so my 22-year-old logic went, anyway.

This reasoning sustained some damage when I finally went out with some hot girls. Doing so made me realize that what my mom had been telling me for years was actually true: a girl's looks aren't everything. But this actually wasn't what put an end to my pity. That didn’t happen until I realized that, when you frame the situation correctly, there actually isn’t anyone to pity. Let me explain...

It's common knowledge that physical beauty in women consists mainly of signs of health, youth, and fertility. Wide hips are attractive because they are conducive to childbearing. Long, full, smooth hair is sexy because it shows that a woman has all the nutrients she needs to grow it. Big breasts are attractive because they emphasize a woman’s ability to feed her child. Tight skin and big eyes are attractive because they make a woman look young and therefore more capable of bearing healthy children.

This state of affairs isn’t a coincidence. It exists because, throughout human history, the men who happened to be attracted to signs of health, youth, and fertility were more likely to fuck healthy, young, and fertile women, and they were therefore more likely to pass on their fertility-attracted genetics to future generations. The dudes who happened to be attracted to some other set of traits in females ended up having sex with less-fertile women, and their genetics were never passed on – or at least, they were passed on less and less until they died out completely. Likewise, the infertile women (in other words, the unattractive women) – or the women attracted to impotent men – also failed to reproduce, and their genes were similarly drained from the gene pool.

Most of you have probably heard all of this before. What is interesting here isn’t so much the evolutionary narrative, it’s the corresponding implication: because the weakest and least-attractive genes died out long ago, and the strongest, healthiest, most attractive ones have persisted, the human race is getting perpetually more attractive.

Of course, you don't need the spiel on natural selection to realize this; just look at what we used to look like:

A Neanderthal Woman and Modern Woman (Image from National Geographic)

Yes, that’s right, I am comparing you to cave women. But it is a legitimate comparison because it makes an important point: if you exist on the earth today, it is only because men, collectively, throughout human history, wanted to fuck you. The ones who didn’t died off millions of years ago, along with all of the “ugly” genes in both sexes. Everyone left is sexy.

It’s like the whole human race has been using Tinder for millions of years, and now we’re living in a world populated only by our matches. Except it’s even better because our matches didn’t just swipe us right because they were bored on the way to work; they actually voted for us by banging our ancestors – there’s no ambiguity about what they wanted. And sure, maybe you like some of your matches more than the others, and maybe some of your matches like others more than you; but there is no getting around the fact that your sexual attractiveness (or potential for it) was a prerequisite for your existence in the gene pool.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that you are attractive just the way you are. It may well be that you need to lose some serious weight and learn how to dress well in order to make men realize that they want to bang you. But that is a good thing, because it means that you can lose some serious weight and learn how to dress well and men will realize that they want to bang you.

And of course, there will always be “least hot,” “hotter” and “hottest.” Our minds have evolved to care about that, but the interesting thing is that men’s penises have not. I’ve talked about this with many guy friends many times, and we all agree that, when we are horny, we are willing to fuck about 50 % of women under the age of 60. And this considers even the women who don’t make an effort – imagine how high that number would be if everyone did.

Neither am I saying that every woman has an inherent capability to lock down a top-shelf dude. There are a lot of things other than looks that matter in dating and relationships, and there is a lot more to life than getting sexual attention from men. But what I am saying is that every woman who thinks she’s “just ugly” or somehow “unfuckable” is flat-out wrong. You are on this earth today because you have the ability to give men a boner. End of story.

This is a pretty important point – important enough that I made it in one of my earliest posts a few years ago. I drew the conclusion then that no girl needs to be below a 5 on the 10-point scale. And I stand by that. To borrow from what I said there:

...the time and effort you put into your appearance will produce results. Do not worry if your gut tells you otherwise; your gut is informed by beauty pageants and "100 Hottest Women" lists, and a thousand other influences that both reinforce and reflect the notion that beauty is a matter of winning the genetic gene pool - i.e. a matter of 'haves' vs. 'have-nots.' This notion is bullshit...no girl needs to be less than a five on the ten scale...If you present yourself well and get in great shape, you will be above average. And for those of you that are naturally about average, the sky's your limit.

I realize this message probably doesn’t apply to most of my readers. If you are reading websites like this, you haven’t given up hope. You know or at least suspect that there are things you can do to improve the quality and quantity of attention you get from men. So this message isn’t necessarily for you. But you probably know other girls who have given up. Maybe you have a friend who thinks she’s inherently unattractive or that she’s destined to be single her whole life because men don't want to fuck her.

The next time that conversation comes up with her (or even if it doesn’t), remind her of what I've said here. Remind her that hope should never be lost. Better yet, remind her that hope should never be necessary. You don't need hope when you're a winner in the genetic Olympics; you just need motivation. And a damn good way for her to get motivated is to recognize the truth: that with a little effort, being sexually attractive is well within her reach.

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

Everyone's talking about the whole "dadbod" thing, so it's been on my mind recently.

Before I say anything else, let me just make it clear that I resent having to reference something with such a retarded name. Modern American culture's tendency to come up with stupid names for stuff like this is almost as obnoxious as its ability to miss the point.

In any case, while on the surface the whole "dadbod" phenomenon looks like nothing more than a justification for men and women who want to be lazy about their appearance, I think there is something valuable in the idea, even if it lies a little beneath the surface. But in order to draw an important comparison to it, I first need to explain something else I've been thinking about recently, thanks to a recent podcast on Animus Empire and conversations with a couple girls I know...

These days, a lot of women out-perform men in the ostensible measures of "success." Whether this be with achievements in the workplace, academic degrees, financial earnings, or just the capability to make things happen, many women feel like they are better than men at their own game. And many women are.

But at the same time, a woman's physiology compels her to want to "marry up." In spite of the desire and ability to be successful by traditionally male standards, she also feels incapable of settling for a man who doesn't impress her with respect to those same standards.

Source: Snyder and Dillow, 2012

This is obviously problematic. When you as a woman are earning $100k + per year or have dual Bachelor's degrees and a Master's, it is going to be pretty tough feeling like you've found someone impressive, because the vast majority of men earn about $45k and drink their way through laughable degrees. I've met many girls in this situation – accomplished in all respects, but unhappy in their relationships and dissatisfied by their supposed success. (Perhaps unfulfilled is a better word, for reasons I explain in my new book.)

Most women don't intentionally choose this situation. They were raised in a culture that told them their personal worth was dictated by the position they could win in the office, or the degree they could earn in school. When they were too young to think for themselves and understand what their post-pubescent selves would want, they were pointed in the direction of traditionally masculine success, and told that they'd better work hard and marry their "equal" if they wanted to be happy in life. But anyone over the age of 30 knows that this is bullshit. Sure, no one wants to go back to 17th century and arranged marriages; but the idea that a woman can be happily married to a man who has no abilities in excess of her own is absurd. She might find a way to be content in that kind of marriage, sure, but content people take Zoloft.

This isn't something that only applies to women, by the way. Both sexes want spouses that are "better" than them; we just want the opposite sex to be better than us in very different and complimentary ways. Women typically want a man who is better than them when it comes to providing and protecting their family, while men typically want a woman who is better than them when it comes to raising children, creating a "home" (I mean this in the widest possible sense of the word) and keeping the family connected to the outside world. I discuss one small aspect of this dynamic in the post The Analogy Between Confidence and Beauty. If you haven't read yet, I suggest taking a minute to do so before finishing this one. The point is that women want men who are stable and capable ("confident"), while men want a woman who is fertile and a light in their life ("beautiful").

This is what your PhD or upper management position looks like.

Anyway that brings us to the "dadbod." As I said, at first glance, the claim that women like men with mediocre bodies looks like an excuse for men to be sloppy and for women to lower the standard of comparison for their own bodies. And for many people, this is exactly how the concept will be used, without further consideration. But for those of us who are willing to think and work, there is a lesson to take away from the "dadbod." After all, the article that started it all was only popular because it touched on an important yet controversial truth, namely, that women and men want different things in relationships. Both sexes want to be better at certain things than their partner, and both sexes want the other to be better than them in some ways. To some degree, it actually does makes sense for a woman to be "the pretty one." This doesn't excuse men from looking after themselves, but it does mean that men who think that they have to tone and sculpt themselves into a Greek God in order to get girls are missing something much more important than bodyfat.

As usual, the useful takeaway here is reached by flipping the comparison to the other side of the sexual divide. Most women struggle with the concept that men don't like them for their accomplishments. They see accomplished men and feel attracted, so they have a hard time understanding why that same standard doesn't apply to them too. At the same time, most women - even if they don't agree that "dadbods" are sexy - at least can identify with wanting to be the pretty one in the relationship and disliking feelings of competition with their own partner. By this point, you probably get what I am going to say: as a man, dating a woman who is highly accomplished in traditionally male arenas is a lot like being a woman and dating a man with a perfectly sculpted body. Or we could state it like this: guys feel the same way about dating women who are more accomplished than them as you feel about dating men who are sexier than you.

Now, by all means, the correct solution for a girl who feels inclined towards guys with "dadbods" is to hit the gym and learn how to present herself (so she can get guys without "dadbods"); just like a guy who feels tempted to date stupid girls should find his purpose in life and work his ass off (so he can feel confident dating smart and accomplished girls). The fact that the sexes want different things doesn't mean it is right for guys to stop working out any more than it means that it is right for women to intentionally dumb themselves down intellectually. As I've stated in a million different ways on this blog, the answer isn't a reduction of the other, it is an augmentation of the self.

No, the whole "dadbod" thing doesn't excuse laziness, but it does serve as a reminder (albeit an awkward one) that each sex is looking for reciprocal qualities in the other. So think twice before pouring several years into developing the very quality you are looking for in the opposite sex. You only have so much time and energy to spend in developing yourself - spend it wisely.

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

The other day, a girl I've been seeing casually for a long time told me that she "really needs to find a boyfriend." I've known several single girls who have communicated this to me in one way or another, and they haven't only been hinting at the fact that they wanted me to be that boyfriend; they've also been expressing an honest desire. Some have suggested it through their behavior or by talking around it; but a few, like this girl, have said it explicitly.

The problem with wanting a boyfriend is that it isn't wanting a husband. Yes, of course, for some girls, saying "I need a boyfriend" is just an abbreviated way of saying that they want to meet a guy who they can date and who will eventually propose; but I wouldn't be writing this post if that applied in every case. Some girls only mean that they are tired of being lonely - that they just want companionship and to feel loved again. They might have some minimal requirements for the boyfriend, but the point is that those requirements fall significantly short of the ones they have for their future spouse.

If your end-game is getting a boyfriend, you aren't going to be filtering the men you date for their long-term compatibility. You'll get into relationships that you could have known from the outset would be terminal (if you'd stopped for a moment to think about it), and you'll end up wasting your time. So be honest with yourself about what you want in a man - maybe even write it down - and don't give in to the temptation of temporary companionship and affection.

As I've said previously (and I'm sure you can probably tell from the title and subtitle) the book is about understanding and handling breakups - specifically, the ones you didn't want to happen. For more detail about the content, I encourage you to take a look at the chapter list at the bottom of this post and read the book description just below the next paragraph.

As I've also pointed out previously, this book was originally intended to be a compilation of blog posts that I'd written about breakups and rejection; so if you are a frequent reader you'll definitely come across some familiar content. However, in the process of compiling the posts, I realized that a lot more needed to be said, and the book grew considerably. I'd estimate that the blog material counts for only 20% of the total content, so even readers who have read every post on this blog will find lots of new material - most of which I consider my best work to date.

Here is the description from the back of the cover:

"It might seem a bit backwards to write a relationship advice book that deals exclusively with breakups and rejection. It would be a lot more obvious to write a book that explains how to attract a man – or at least how to keep the one you already have. Better to give advice about how to start or maintain a relationship than how to deal with the end of one.

"However, it has been my experience that, for most girls, a painful breakup or rejection actually is the beginning, not the end. It isn't the beginning of a relationship, obviously, but it is the beginning in the sense that it causes them to question for the first time their approach to dating, relationships, and the opposite sex in general. It is the beginning of their efforts to make a change.

"This book is not written for women with a weak spirit. It isn't going to tell you how to mitigate the pain you feel in the wake of a breakup, and it isn't going to tell you that everything is going to be fine. And while it will tell you how to maximize your chances of getting your ex back, it isn't going to pretend that there are any 'tricks' to make that outcome likely. However, it will do something much more important: it will give you a strong insight into your ex's state of mind and male psychology in general. This will give you the foundation you need to navigate the breakup and – more importantly – propel yourself into honest and successful relationships with the men in your future."

Anyway, enjoy, and please let me know what you think, either in the comments here, the comments on Amazon, or by e-mail. As always, you can contact me at therulesrevisited@gmail.com.

Chapter List

Introduction

PART I – UNDERSTANDING WHAT HAPPENED

Men Don’t Fall in Love the Same Way Women Do
The Analogy between Sex and Commitment
Why This Always Happens to You
Changing Your Perspective
Why You Didn't See It Coming
Men Don’t Have “Commitment Problems”
The Difference between Liking You and Liking You Enough
Why Men “Fade Out”
You Weren't Dating Him in the First Place
The Small Things Didn't Matter Anyway
Why Your Ex (Who Dumped You) Is Still Contacting You
Your Ex and Guilt
Your Ex and Pride
Your Ex and Decisiveness
Interpreting His Emotions
What’s Going through His Mind

PART II – HOW TO HANDLE THE BREAKUP

The Importance of Silence after a Breakup
No, You Can't Be “Just Friends”
How to Know If You Should Cut Him Off
Why It's Never Too Late
Why You Should Tell Him That You Are Cutting Him Off
What to Say
Managing Your Expectations
When You Should Fight to Save Your Relationship
Exceptions to the Rule
How to Know If You Should Dump Him First
When He Cheats
The Anatomy of Missing Him

PART III – FOLLOWING THROUGH WITH THE BREAKUP

Making Him Jealous Doesn't Work
Seeing Him at Work
Keeping in Touch With His Friends and Family
Being Connected with Your Ex on Social Media
Returning His Things and Getting Yours Back
What to Do When He Contacts You
When He Says He Wants Another Chance
Reason and Distraction
Stop Sleeping with Your Ex to Prove He Likes You

PART IV – MOVING ON AND REBUILDING

You Are Responsible for Your Own Romantic Happiness
Stop Letting Him Waste Your Time
Know Why You Want Him Back
Why Getting Him Back Won't Help
Why Getting Dumped Is a Good Thing
The Importance of Emotional Honesty
Dating Again
Putting the Breakup in Perspective
When You Can Contact Him Again
Reframing the Future